In the course of the last 2 years, the Greenpeace Detox campaign has repeatedly made waves.
The latest such incident happened in the context of what is possibly the world’s most relevant trade fair for performance and outdoor wear ISPO in January 2014. At that point of time, Greenpeace released news that in the water repellent coatings of jackets by some renowned brands, traces of fluorin had been identified. And that said test results had been ‘hidden’ from the public.
What few people realise though, is that the prosecution by Greenpeace of mills, dye houses and the buying brands in combination with their ‘Zero Limit’ demand, has shifted the brand’s focus from ‘output’ control to ‘input’ and ‘process control’.
Definition: Output Control, Input Control, Process Control
‘Output control’ is what typically happens when the environmental regulator comes into a faciltiy and tests effluents (‘end of pipes’, etc.) for any levels of toxic or illegal substances. This concept is also applied when products are tested after production – as is e.g. the case with OekoTex 100 – for residues of substances, and to make sure that they comply with minimum standards in this respect.
‘Output control’ is the methodology applied by Greenpeace itself for the research leading to their Detox reports, for both of their reports, i.e. the one exposing Chinese dye houses, as well as the one following finished products down the retail supply chain and analysing their substance content after having been sold.
‘Input Control‘ in contrast is what the discussion in the context of ‘Road Map to Zero‘ is revolving around. The reason behind this is that Greenpeace’s demand of ‘Zero Discharge’ can technically only truly be achieved if there is ‘Zero Input’. This is also where a significant gap in understanding remains between the signatory brands of ‘Road Map to Zero’ and Greenpeace itself: The former, being technologist, looking at the origins of the problem and trying to figure out how to solve it (including whether it is solvable at all at this point of time, and what knowlede and technology gaps exist), and the latter focusing on the immediate results, the test results, and acting with a sense of urgency.
‘Input Control’ hence is all about making sure that no component going into the production of a product – coatings, dyes etc. – is toxic in first place, logically then leading to ‘Zero Discharge’. The issue here is that in some cases the lack of pressure in the past resulted in a stalled development cycle of non-toxic alternatives to the ones criticised by Geenpeace.
An example of an input control focused standard is BlueSign.
While BlueSign does cover health & safety – mostly related to air quality in production -, it does not cover social aspects in textile production.
Video: BlueSign CEO Peter Waeber explains the principles of the BlueSign standard.
Finally, ‘Process Control‘ is complementary to ‘Input Control’ in that it expands the control applied to the latter across the full depth of the product development and manufacturing, and supports a step-wise refinement approach. In a sense, the ‘Process Control’ concept would be for the sustainability in textiles what Six Sigma is for quality management.
An example of such a standard is the new OekoTex STeP accreditation, replacing the now discontinued OekoTex 1000 standard.
OekoTex STeP is an allrounder. Hence, it is not quite as specialised as BlueSign for chemical components used in textile production. Instead it does cover other aspects such as social production conditions and similar.
Video: Oeko-Tex STeP Promotion Film (c) Oeko-Tex”
Detox – accidental business development for BlueSign, OekoTex
At the occasion of my recent visit to Performance Days – the main target group for much of the Greenpeace Detox Campaign – it became clear that inadvertently the campaign had become a main businsess development force for the likes of BlueSign and OekoTex STeP.
Where 4 months ago some brands were still evaluating their signing up to BlueSign – it’s certainly not a cheap thing to do – most of them were planning to announce their certification by the end of May or beginning of June.
Similar stories were heard from manufacturers from all over the world: Japan, Taiwan, US, China …
Manufacturers’ opinions were particularly interesting to hear. The issues they raised were broad and covered the following areas:
– ‘hard pressures’ by their buying brands to face the cost of BlueSign certification, but without financial or other help by these same brands.
– the lack of guarantees that the investment will pay off. The brands did not guarantee to keep working with them as a consequence of the certification, but rather made it a precondition to consider working with these manufacturers at all.
– the problem of finding financially viable alternatives to their former local suppliers – which had decided not to get BlueSign accreditation and hence were no longer qualified to supply in the chain of large brands
– the pressure to use proprietary and branded dye stuffs of only 1 or 2 global suppliers – at substantial cost on the one hand, but also making it impossible to support their own national economies.
– with BlueSign being the only such standard around at this point of time, Greenpeace was driving everyone into BlueSign’s arms, rather than actually continuing the discussion. Of course brands would take the easy route of certification rather than something else.
In short, the ‘Zero Discharge’ campaign has good business for a selected few players in the field. BlueSign and OekoTex STeP are among the clear winners of this game. Yet, it remains to be seen if the actual body of thought of the campaign as well as the one behind those certifications will take root in the industry. For now, there is a probability that certification is chosen as the easy way out of the PR and consumer relations dilemma many brands are facing just now.
